Democracy in Peril: Biden and the 2024 Presidential Election

This article was co-authored by Natalie Reyes.  

Despite signaling to aides in 2019 that he would almost certainly not seek re-election in 2024, 81-year-old President Joe Biden is doing exactly that. Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Biden has positioned himself as the only Democrat capable of securing victory against Trump’s “threat to democracy” in the presidential race. This narrative, however, has fallen flat among voters. 

Overall, 86% of American voters believe that Biden is too old to serve another term as president while only 59% believe the same about 77-year-old Trump. A number of different polls show that Biden has lost ground with many key electoral demographics: Hispanic, Asian, Black, LGBTQ+, Millennial, Gen Z, and college women voters all provide higher approval ratings for Trump over Biden. 

Aware of these widespread voter perceptions, a sense of foreboding prevails among Democratic strategists and pollsters who view Biden’s renomination with alarm. As the electorate displays its frustration with Biden, Democratic strategists are wrestling with many difficult questions: Is there time for Biden’s poll numbers to improve before November? If not, is there still time for Biden to step down and for Democrats to choose a new standard-bearer in August?

By nearly every metric, the American electorate is discontent as the past few years have been a wild ride. The COVID-19 pandemic eroded the savings of many young Americans. Then inflation struck. Soaring rents reached record highs, housing became unaffordable for half of U.S. renters, and grocery costs skyrocketed. Although inflation has since cooled in the past year, most voters still believe the economy is in poor condition, and pollsters report a significant disparity between the economy’s actual state and its perception by the average American. 

This discontent among the American electorate is eroding Biden’s poll numbers and empowering Trump. Biden’s approval rating hit a record low of 34% in December. As Biden’s approval rating decreases, Trump’s lead in battleground states has increased. According to polls by Bloomberg/Morning Consult and Emerson/The Hill, Trump leads Biden in seven battleground states including North Carolina, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. 

In key battleground states such as Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, the ‘Uncommitted’ movement vividly illustrates another area of voter dissatisfaction. In protest of Biden’s support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, the movement urged Democrats to vote ‘Uncommitted’ in state primaries. In Michigan, the movement garnered 101,000 uncommitted ballots — about 13% of the state’s total ballots cast in the Democratic Party primary. This substantial share not only highlights the breadth of discontent but could decisively influence the state’s outcome in the November election, surpassing even the 2016 margin that enabled Trump’s win in the state. 

Reflecting on these trends, many strategists and pollsters view Biden as an imperiled incumbent. Democratic strategist James Carville warned that if the election occurred today, Trump would win. Carville fears Biden will be badly remembered much like Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court, who refused to step down for the good of the country. Similarly, polling guru Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight opined that the best option would be if Biden decided not to run. 

Perhaps the most powerful message came from David Axelrod, the chief strategist of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns. Given Biden’s alarming poll numbers, Axelrod urged Biden not to seek reelection for the sake of American democracy. “If [Biden] continues to run, he will be the nominee of the Democratic Party,” Axelrod wrote on social media. “What he needs to decide is whether that is wise; whether it’s in his best interest or the country’s.” In response to Axelrod’s urging Biden to put the country first, Biden called Axelrod “a prick.” 

Biden’s brusque dismissal of Axelrod’s warnings underscores his campaign team’s overconfidence in a November victory, ignoring the crucial task of addressing voters’ concerns. According to New York magazine, despite the fact that “many strategists are aghast at Biden’s polling slide,” the Biden campaign and their allies believe “the 2024 race is totally under control,” and they have dismissed those warning of Biden’s less-than-ideal reelection prospects.  

Lining up behind Biden, party elites quashed any dissenting voices seeking a Biden alternative. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pennsylvania) declared in October that Biden would be the party’s nominee and pollsters “should shut the h— up.” Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) likewise told strategists “to shut the f— up” and support Biden regardless of his chances. The message from party elites to strategists and voters is clear: Biden — poll numbers be ignored — will be our standard-bearer. 

Lest rank-and-file voters did not get the message, party elites reordered primaries to favor Biden. The party reordered the primaries so that South Carolina came first instead of New Hampshire or Iowa, two states which had rejected Biden in previous primaries. In Florida, party elites canceled their primaries so that all the state’s voting delegates went to Biden by default as the incumbent. Such actions discouraged the possibility of a challenger threatening Biden’s renomination. 

With no viable path for a new primary challenger to emerge, New York Times columnist Ezra Klein argues that party elites should convince Biden to step aside and select a replacement at the Chicago convention in August. Although Klein’s proposal may surprise some readers, there is precedent for such a process: party delegates historically chose the best candidate for president from 1831 until 1968.  

Some Democrats fear that selecting a new candidate at the August convention may result in a replay of the 1968 presidential election. In 1968, after President Lyndon B. Johnson dropped out of the primaries due to declining poll numbers, party delegates nominated Vice President Hubert Humphrey to be their nominee in one of the most tumultuous and controversial conventions in U.S. history. In November, Richard M. Nixon defeated Humphrey. However, this oft-cited 1968 debacle represents an extreme outlier of party dysfunction. In the preceding century and a half, voters consistently accepted the nominee chosen by delegates. 

Setting aside whether Democrats should replace Biden at the convention, the next question is who could replace him. There are several Democrats who could beat Trump: Among the more well-known persons are Gretchen Whitmer, the Governor of Michigan, and Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California, both of whom fare better against Trump in polls. Of course, Democrats can’t just replace Biden with anyone. Politicians who would fare worse against Trump include Vice President Kamala Harris. Despite proclaiming she is “ready to serve,” Harris floundered in the 2020 Democratic primaries and continues to have low approval ratings. 

Regardless of who party elites might pick to replace Biden, time is short and Democratic elites seem to be paralyzed. As Obama’s former speechwriter Jon Favreau explains, party elites “just don’t know” if keeping Biden is a wiser course of action than swapping him with a lesser-known candidate at the convention. In the meanwhile, Democratic strategists like James Carville hope that a Supreme Court decision or another trial conviction for Trump might shift the race in Biden’s favor. “We’re officially in Hail Mary mode here,” Carville stated. 

Whether or not party elites replace Biden at the August convention in Chicago, such last-minute maneuvering will not address the systemic issues that have plagued the Democratic primary system for many years, as highlighted during this nomination cycle. These issues have been percolating for decades. 

Party rule modifications over time have made launching a presidential bid after the early months of an election year nearly unfeasible. With the aim of maximizing their influence in the primaries, states schedule their primaries at the very start of the election year. This process, termed “frontloading,” diminishes the dynamic and democratic nature of primaries, undermining their very purpose. 

The shift to earlier state primaries has resulted in earlier registration deadlines as well. It is almost impossible for any new challenger to enter the primaries after the first week of an election year, as most states mandate registration prior to that cut-off. Hence, the chances of a hitherto undeclared Democratic challenger entering the primaries against Biden after January were nil. The grand result is the mess we now find ourselves in. 

The Democratic Party today stands at a crossroads. The current discontent among voters is a symptom of deeper issues — a disconnect between party elites and the grassroots, a nomination process resistant to change, and a reluctance to embrace new leadership ideas. This election cycle is not merely about who will lead the nation for the next four years: it’s a critical moment for the Democratic Party at a time of unprecedented peril to American democracy. 

The choices made today will echo beyond 2024, shaping the future of our country. Will the Democratic Party change and listen to its strategists and constituents, or continue to ignore these critical voices? Make no mistake, if the party fails to change, they risk losing far more than the November election.